Is This Ethical

[Guest miff]

Just wondered what you all think

What is the differance as opposed to the old days with our old portable Cassette recorders

Dont think I would want to do it myself as leaving a nice shinny lap top lying around at a venue recording as I danced away the night. Is just asking for it to be nicked

Surely it wont be long before theres a portable MP3 player with a decent record function bulit in which will do it

Only differance I can see between then and now is the ease in distrubtion with the event off email etc

Say A DJ plays his latest discovery out and its a Killer tune. You get home, do a bit of cut and pasting and email the said tune of to all youre mates. then they do the same, and then on & on by the time Mr dj plays it out for the second time already well known by the 3rd or 4th week we all know the words .

Hence the life Span of said record is drasticly cut

So my own oppinion is NO over to you

[Guest Baz]

You can do it with a mini disc player, know some do it.

Last 100 club, a guy came and sat down next to us with a microphone and a recorder in his pocket, while butch was on taped one track then up and left looked a bit dodgey to me

[mischief]

didn't something happen along these lines at the rocket or am i mixed up in the head -- No comments please

[Guest Baz]

didn't something happen along these lines at the rocket or am i mixed up in the head -- No comments please

That was done, striaght from the decks to a CD recorder, nothing wrong with recording 'live' as you couldn't put it on vinyl!

[John May]

I'm feeling in abit of a no compromise mood today, the music was originally recorded on vinyl therefore it should only be played on vinyl, don't care about all the politics regarding moving into the 21st century and all that, Keep the music vinyl............enough said :angry:

[mischief]

That was done, striaght from the decks to a CD recorder, nothing wrong with recording 'live' as you couldn't put it on vinyl!

ah yeh knew it was something cheers Baz

[Guest Stuart T]

Say A DJ plays his latest discovery out and its a Killer tune. You get home, do a bit of cut and pasting and email the said tune of to all youre mates. then they do the same, and then on & on by the time Mr dj plays it out for the second time already well known by the 3rd or 4th week we all know the words .

Hence the life Span of said record is drasticly cut

So my own oppinion is NO over to you

Can't say I'm overly keen myself but as far as everyone knowing the words, isn't that the same with 99% of the records played nowadays anyway? At least, for people with better memories than me In fact, making it widely available like that may add to its popularity. What would be a pain is for people to then cut it and play it to death at venues, if only the one person had it to play it would still be his or her exclusive sound to play out, if thats what they wanted.

[Gene-r]

Can't say I'm overly keen myself but as far as everyone knowing the words, isn't that the same with 99% of the records played nowadays anyway? At least, for people with better memories than me In fact, making it widely available like that may add to its popularity. What would be a pain is for people to then cut it and play it to death at venues, if only the one person had it to play it would still be his or her exclusive sound to play out, if thats what they wanted.

Aaahhh, the beauty of older records - you can hear every word they sing!

[Simsy]

That was done, striaght from the decks to a CD recorder, nothing wrong with recording 'live' as you couldn't put it on vinyl!

Assuming you have permission of course.

[Guest in town Mikey]

Assuming you have permission of course.

As someone who has taped the odd spot or two in the dim and distant. My exerience is there is so much background noise the records are listenable at best, and certainly not recordable in any sense.

I think the guy who underhandedly recorded the tunes at the Rocket actually had access to the sound equipment. Without that, surely the talking, clapping and generall hubub picked up render the recording for personal entertainment only?

[Guest Baz]

Assuming you have permission of course.

Well yes it would be nice if you ask permision, but we all know that rarely happens!! dont see any problems IMO with some one with a tape recorder or mini disc player recording a set for own use and a few friends, the quality aint gonna be good, so there is no chance of it ending up on a vinyl carvers jobbie or for CD 'distribution' if some one was to be caught selling Cd's of 'live' recordings from any venue, i would whole hartedly expect the venue promoter to take 'action' by what ever means necissary

[Simsy]

I think the guy who underhandedly recorded the tunes at the Rocket actually had access to the sound equipment. Without that, surely the talking, clapping and generall hubub picked up render the recording for personal entertainment only?

Through the decks indeed. You would still have the dj announcing tracks etc so still maybe personal entertainment purposes...

[Guest Stuart T]

Aaahhh, the beauty of older records - you can hear every word they sing!

Maybe you should get a better hi-fi?

[Simsy]

Well yes it would be nice if you ask permision, but we all know that rarely happens!! dont see any problems IMO with some one with a tape recorder or mini disc player recording a set for own use and a few friends, the quality aint gonna be good, so there is no chance of it ending up on a vinyl carvers jobbie or for CD 'distribution' if some one was to be caught selling Cd's of 'live' recordings from any venue, i would whole hartedly expect the venue promoter to take 'action' by what ever means necissary

Was thinking more of Rocket situ to be fair.

Though there are no shortage of live cd's from wigan, complete with crowd noise etc.

[Guest Paul]

...the music was originally recorded on vinyl therefore it should only be played on vinyl...

The music wasn't originally RECORDED on vinyl, it was recorded onto magnetic tape (mostly) and REPLICATED on vinyl - simply because they had nothing more suitable at the time.

I also like vinyl but it's foolish not to use newer and superior "sound carrying appliances and contrivances" if they are available.

Chimneys were originally swept by skinny kids so maybe we should still be sending kids up chimneys???

Paul Mooney

[Guest in town Mikey]

Through the decks indeed. You would still have the dj announcing tracks etc so still maybe personal entertainment purposes...

A bit like Pammy Anderson's tape with her hubby. Imagine if that ever got out.

[Guest Stuart T]

Through the decks indeed. You would still have the dj announcing tracks etc so still maybe personal entertainment purposes...

Suspect that you could probably get at the channels from the decks and avoid the mike channel?

[Guest Stuart T]

The music wasn't originally RECORDED on vinyl, it was recorded onto magnetic tape (mostly) and REPLICATED on vinyl - simply because they had nothing more suitable at the time.

I also like vinyl but it's foolish not to use newer and superior "sound carrying appliances and contrivances" if they are available.

Chimneys were originally swept by skinny kids so maybe we should still be sending kids up chimneys???

Paul Mooney

Are they available? If I had a chimney I'd be insisting on sending a small urchin up to clean it thats for sure. Trouble is that children tend to be fat nowadays (according to the papers) so they might get stuck up their for a few days. It'd be good for them though.

A bit like Pammy Anderson's tape with her hubby. Imagine if that ever got out.

I didn't even know she was married.

[Guest Baz]

Was thinking more of Rocket situ to be fair.

Though there are no shortage of live cd's from wigan, complete with crowd noise etc.

Yeah but they are mainly from around 30 years ago, aint as if there is any 'current' cover ups or one off's ect, so it dont matter, how ever if lets take for example 100 club, some one recorded again for example, butchs spot, and started to sell it on ebay! they are liable IMO.

Rocket situ, well that was just down right low and dirty.

[Guest Paul]

Suspect that you could probably get at the channels from the decks and avoid the mike channel?

With most pro mixers you can output a clean signal in stereo from the selected channel(s) and bypass the mic channel.

On the other hand, with some DJs you might prefer to bypass the music channels as well and record nothing but silence.

Paul Mooney

[Guest Stuart T]

On the other hand, with some DJs you might prefer to bypass the music channels as well and record nothing but silence.

Paul Mooney

Saucer of milk for Mr Mooney please.

[Guest Paul]

Are they available? If I had a chimney I'd be insisting on sending a small urchin up to clean it thats for sure. Trouble is that children tend to be fat nowadays...

Yes, as a matter of fact I'm a chimney sweep but I must admit I haven't had much work since I was seven years old!

The youngsters seem to get all the work.

Paul Mooney

[Guest]

It's unlikely MOST dj's own the RIGHT (in copyright law) to copy any 45 they play at a venue unless they run the company that owns the rights to that recording for some reason.

Therefore, any 'copy' whether it's a cassette, tape, acetate, mp.3 or anything else is more than likely to be technically illegal.

The copying of a sound via a recording of the set from a venue is only 'stealing' from the companies and agencies that own the rights to it. And if nothing happens to that recording other than the distribution to one or to other 'punters' then- well thats been going on for YEARS via tape swaps and more recently CDR swaps and internet sites where you can go and 'copy' music (which in real terms is just product or goods just like soap powder or a pint tof milk) that some one else owns. But...... no one ever takes the moral high ground about that !

The world has moved on from the days when the best anyone could do was record onto a home cassette player unless they had access to professional recording equipment.

So surely he point being made is that now you can do an almost perfect copy of anything and do it very easily indeed. For instance, the rare Frankie Lymon 45 is available on a CD- it would be very easy to press 45 copies of it if you had access to the facility.

The home technology which enables the fast, cheap, easy and almost perfect digital copying of anything musically is owned by the same corporations that run the music industry

So all that means is- if you are at the top of the tree you'll win-if not then you'll lose. The small guys will lose out -the big guys will get richer. No real change there then.

But the hypocracy of some factions of the Northern Scene which still crows when it sells a record for three or four figures but still claims to support the artists involved is breathtaking. The artist rarely benefits from that four figure sale. But if a LEGAL reissue is made of the recording then some benefit will passed to the artist/ writer /producer ect.

[Guest Stuart T]

Technically and logically quite correct Simon. In recent years I suspect that only Ian Levine has had the right to permit the copying of much of his playlist

[Guest]

True Stuart, true.

So, as you are a logical and apparently intelligent man, that makes you a supporter of his then? Logically that is, of course. :-)

[Guest Stuart T]

True Stuart, true.

So, as you are a logical and apparently intelligent man, that makes you a supporter of his then? Logically that is, of course. :-)

Ah, but musical taste is subjective and therefore not logical.

[Chalky]

didn't something happen along these lines at the rocket or am i mixed up in the head -- No comments please

That was done, striaght from the decks to a CD recorder, nothing wrong with recording 'live' as you couldn't put it on vinyl!

no it wasn't, Gavin had access to the equipment and connected a mini disc or other recorder to the equipment and got as good a recording as was possible, certainly good enough to do the odd cut or two. It was done without permission, theft, or as good as IMO.

[Guest Baz]

no it wasn't, Gavin had access to the equipment and connected a mini disc or other recorder to the equipment and got as good a recording as was possible, certainly good enough to do the odd cut or two. It was done without permission, theft, or as good as IMO.

Thats what i said didn't i

[Bigsoulman]

I'm feeling in abit of a no compromise mood today, the music was originally recorded on vinyl therefore it should only be played on vinyl, don't care about all the politics regarding moving into the 21st century and all that, Keep the music vinyl............enough said :angry:

Here here John!

Lenny

[Winnie :-)]

As someone who has taped the odd spot or two in the dim and distant. My exerience is there is so much background noise the records are listenable at best, and certainly not recordable in any sense.

I think the guy who underhandedly recorded the tunes at the Rocket actually had access to the sound equipment. Without that, surely the talking, clapping and generall hubub picked up render the recording for personal entertainment only?

============

Did you go to the rocket Mike? Very little talking, no clapping, and a distinct lack of general hub-bub

[Guest]

Not a logical answer Stu... or relevant!

[Guest]

But the hypocracy of some factions of the Northern Scene which still crows when it sells a record for three or four figures but still claims to support the artists involved is breathtaking. The artist rarely benefits from that four figure sale. But if a LEGAL reissue is made of the recording then some benefit will passed to the artist/ writer /producer ect.

Good points made there

[Chalky]

Thats what i said didn't i

yes just backing up your point and making the theft IMO comment as well

Edited April 18, 2006 by chalky

[Guest Paul]

...It was done without permission, theft, or as good as IMO.

But if a THEFT has taken place, it is a theft from the rights owners rather than from the DJ who merely owns a copy.

Paul Mooney

[Chalky]

But if a THEFT has taken place, it is a theft from the rights owners rather than from the DJ who merely owns a copy.

Paul Mooney

if some of the records are studio discs bought legit from the owner then surely the current owner has the rights. as some are also unissued then no royalties due????

[Guest Matt Male]

============

Did you go to the rocket Mike? Very little talking, no clapping, and a distinct lack of general hub-bub

You're right Winston, probably better sound quality than most of the studios of the 60s i should think.

[Guest Stuart T]

if some of the records are studio discs bought legit from the owner then surely the current owner has the rights. as some are also unissued then no royalties due????

Don't think it actually matters whether theyw ere issued or not but rather who owns the rights. Simon is right that the actual DJ would only be the victim of a theft if his or her (so PC today) records were stolen, not recorded, at least technically he is right but I think many of us have a different expectation, rightly or wrongly.

Not a logical answer Stu... or relevant!

Disagree.

lets not have the Stuart and Simon show again. Simmsy will get upset.

[Chalky]

Don't think it actually matters whether theyw ere issued or not but rather who owns the rights. Simon is right that the actual DJ would only be the victim of a theft if his or her (so PC today) records were stolen, not recorded, at least technically he is right but I think many of us have a different expectation, rightly or wrongly.

yes I agree but I know of dealers/collectors who when they have acquired stuidio acetates they also aquired the rights, so if that dealer/collectyor was a dj and his set recorded then it wouild be theft from him would it not.

[Chalky]

But the hypocracy of some factions of the Northern Scene which still crows when it sells a record for three or four figures but still claims to support the artists involved is breathtaking. The artist rarely benefits from that four figure sale. But if a LEGAL reissue is made of the recording then some benefit will passed to the artist/ writer /producer ect.

there's many a soul "star" who has a lot to thank the northern scene for. Without this scene many of them would have received no recognition whatsoever for their work and ultimately no royalties from cd sales or appearance fees

I can't really see a re-issue swelling any soul singers pension coffer too much either. Maybe Paul can give us some figures that some of the singers have made from royalties from Grapevine?

I bet most of the singers are just pleased that their work hasn't gone unrecognised. If they do make some money great, but I bet what they do make doesn't affect their lifestyle too much.

[Guest Paul]

if some of the records are studio discs bought legit from the owner then surely the current owner has the rights. as some are also unissued then no royalties due????

Not so. The posession (or "ownership") of a tape or an acetate is entirely different to the ownership (or control) of the various copyrights which may be embodied in or associated with the recordings or the performances contained in the recordings. Those rights would belong to artists and/or record companies, writers and publishers - and these days can only be legally assigned via written agreements.

Copyright (and therefore protection) automatically exists in all compositions and recordings (unissued or not).

Likewise, if someone buys a rare painting, he has no automatic copyright claim or reproduction rights.

Paul Mooney

[Guest Paul]

yes I agree but I know of dealers/collectors who when they have acquired stuidio acetates they also aquired the rights, so if that dealer/collectyor was a dj and his set recorded then it wouild be theft from him would it not.

Again, no. It is not unlawful to RECORD a set but it is unlawful to reproduce the actual music contained in that set - without the permission of the copyright owners. You don't need the permission of the DJ.

It can, however, be unlawful to record the LIVE PERFORMANCE of an artist without permission.

Paul Mooney

[Stuart Bower]

Not so. The posession (or "ownership") of a tape or an acetate is entirely different to the ownership (or control) of the various copyrights which may be embodied in or associated with the recordings or the performances contained in the recordings. Those rights would belong to artists and/or record companies, writers and publishers - and these days can only be legally assigned via written agreements.

Copyright (and therefore protection) automatically exists in all compositions and recordings (unissued or not).

Likewise, if someone buys a rare painting, he has no automatic copyright claim or reproduction rights.

Paul Mooney

When buying a copy of ANY recorded material..You do NOT own the audio/video even if you buy an original copy of the material. What you are buying is a licence to play the recording ,and only then under the conditions that the copyright holder states unless special permission is granted. (i.e. an additional licence for public broadcast in radio stations,pubs,clubs etc.)

But the beauty of our scene is that the copyright has expired on many of our favourite recordings-a lot of these record and/or music publishing companies have gone to the wall-so can we do what we like with these?

I`ve seen a certain deejay doing a spot from his laptop-(it was plugged into the decks)..I was surprised to see this,but so long as the guy owns the originals has anybody got a problem with this? Unethical? Maybe.

And then there`s this...

https://www.ppluk.com/ppl/ppl_lf.nsf/DigitalDJ?openPage

And the people who are against it...

https://www.pledgebank.com/djlicense

Comments please....

[Guest Paul]

...Maybe Paul can give us some figures that some of the singers have made from royalties from Grapevine?

Hello,

These things are negotiable but here are some common examples:

On a multi-artist compilation album, an artist might only have one track out of a total of 24 tracks (for example) so they will earn 1/24th of the total royalties for that particular album. Obviously, they won't get rich but if the album sells four thousand copies they'll probably earn between £250 and £300 (each artist) or a higher amount paid in advance.

On a single-artist album, however, the artist receives 100% share of royalties and could typically make over £6,000 on sales of four thousand copies.

In most cases the royalties are actually paid to a record company or producer who in turn is responsible for paying the artists.

And royalties are often estimated and paid in advance so in reality many artists get paid for more copies than are actually sold.

But, sadly, there are some companies who don't seem to pay any royalties to anyone at all.

Paul Mooney

[Chalky]

Hello,

These things are negotiable but here are some common examples:

On a multi-artist compilation album, an artist might only have one track out of a total of 24 tracks (for example) so they will earn 1/24th of the total royalties for that particular album. Obviously, they won't get rich but if the album sells four thousand copies they'll probably earn between £250 and £300 (each artist) or a higher amount paid in advance.

On a single-artist album, however, the artist receives 100% share of royalties and could typically make over £6,000 on sales of four thousand copies.

In most cases the royalties are actually paid to a record company or producer who in turn is responsible for paying the artists.

And royalties are often estimated and paid in advance so in reality many artists get paid for more copies than are actually sold.

But, sadly, there are some companies who don't seem to pay any royalties to anyone at all.

Paul Mooney

cheers Paul, interesting

[Guest Gavin Page]

no it wasn't, Gavin had access to the equipment and connected a mini disc or other recorder to the equipment and got as good a recording as was possible, certainly good enough to do the odd cut or two. It was done without permission, theft, or as good as IMO.

Gavin who

[FrankM]

I`ve seen a certain deejay doing a spot from his laptop-(it was plugged into the decks)..

I think if you search the soul source archive you might read a post from Kev Roberts pointing out that a DJ with a lap top plugged into the mixer was recording his own set.

This may have led to some confusion.

Some DJ's record it for their own reference to check on their own performance. Other DJ's in other scenes record sets to sell as CD's.

Some DJ's have very kindly let me record sets for broadcast on reflections. The Excerpts on the radiomagnetic Hi Feed play at about 96kbs so it is not exactly Hi Fi.

You can check them here

https://www.radiomagnetic.com/archive/index...?genre=&show=65

[Chalky]

Gavin who

no need to worry my friend, I'm referring to Levines side kick, body guard what ever you wish to call him.

[Guest Gavin Page]

no need to worry my friend, I'm referring to Levines side kick, body guard what ever you wish to call him.

Didn't know his name was Gavin thats a bit worrying

Edited April 20, 2006 by Gavin Page

[Guest]

Have a look round the side of a UK 45 label and here's what it says-

"THE RIGHTS OF THE MANUFACTURER AND OF THE OWNER OF THE RECORDED WORK RESERVED. UNAUTHORISED PUBLIC PERFORMANCE BROADCASTING AND COPYING OF THIS RECORD PROHIBITED"

Paul's already given the inner workings of that.

[Guest Stuart T]

Have a look round the side of a UK 45 label and here's what it says-

"THE RIGHTS OF THE MANUFACTURER AND OF THE OWNER OF THE RECORDED WORK RESERVED. UNAUTHORISED PUBLIC PERFORMANCE BROADCASTING AND COPYING OF THIS RECORD PROHIBITED"

Paul's already given the inner workings of that.

The legal position from the contents of a record label is not an accurate/complete summary of the law, but it is the case that anyone playing their records in a club is technically in breach of the relevant legislation. Unless in a private not for profit club. Of course, the record companies and copyright owners don't enforce that right as its in their interests to get the records played if they are trying to market them, with older records its just not worth the effort.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Stuart T